Haïoun, Corinne

Background: Disease progression (PD) after frontline IC therapy for DLBCL is a clinically significant event and only 20-40% of patients achieve durable remissions with salvage chemotherapy. Patients who experience early PD or have disease refractory to IC have especially poor outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has emerged as a novel effective therapy for selected cases of relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL, although its availability is limited by cost and logistic challenges. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools would be useful for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies vs those who are more likely to be successfully managed by conventional therapies, but few have been developed for r/r DLBCL. Methods: Model building was performed in patients with PD after IC from 13 frontline, multicenter, randomized DLBCL clinical trials from the SEAL Consortium. All patients received rituximab and an anthracycline-based combination IC and were followed systematically; however therapy received, clinical, and laboratory data at progression were not available. OS was defined as time from first progression until death from any cause. Associations between variables and OS were evaluated using Cox models; splines were used to model functional forms. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish LYFO cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-stat), Brier scores, and calibration with metrics evaluated at two years from progression. Results: Model Development (SEAL): 1125 of 5112 patients had PD after IC. Median time to PD (TTP) was 11.8 months (IQR 6.6-23.5); median age at PD was 68 years (IQR 60-73). At a median follow-up of 21 months from PD (IQR 7-43), 732 patients (65%) had died and 24 month overall survival after PD (OS24) was 35% (95% CI: 32-38). TTP was strongly associated with post PD OS (spline p-value<0.0001) with OS24 ranging from 18% in patients with TTP <6 months compared to 69% in patients with TTP > 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value<0.0001) was associated with post PD OS. A model consisting of age at PD including patients 40-80 years and TTP ranging 0-60 months was created (n=1011, Figure B) due to sparse data outside these intervals. C-stat was 0.67, and the model was well calibrated (predicted OS24 = 34% vs. actual OS24 = 34%). External Validation (MER): The model was validated in 290 patients with DLBCL who initiated 2nd line therapy after PD to IC. Median age at PD was younger than the SEAL cohort at 62 years (IQR 57-70). Patients with biopsy proven indolent histology at relapse were excluded. Median TTP was 8.2 months (IQR 5.1-17.0). At a median follow-up of 87 months from PD, 201 patients (69%) had died. OS24 was 47% (95% CI: 41-53). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.65), but underestimated OS24 (predicted =33% vs. 47% actual, Figure C). External Validation (LYFO): The model was validated in 599 patients with DLBCL and PD after frontline IC. Median age at PD was 67 years (IQR 60-73). Median TTP was 10.1 months (IQR 6.0-19.4). At a median follow-up of 82 months from PD, 435 patients (73%) had died. OS24 was 38% (95% CI: 34-42). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.67) when applied to the LYFO cohort, but again underestimated OS24 (predicted =32% vs. 38% actual, Figure D). Case vignettes: A 74 year old patient who progressed 9 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 20%. A 58 year old patient who progressed 32 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 65% Conclusions: TTP to following IC is strongly associated with post-progression survival in DLBCL. We developed a model from the largest frontline clinical trial dataset in DLBCL and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the r/r setting. The model allows better understanding of expected outcomes in r/r DLBCL and can aid design and interpretation of trial results in this setting. The model underestimated the actual survival probability when applied to non-trial validation cohorts. Recalibration of the model for transplant eligible patients and development of smartphone based point-of-care application of the model is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitz:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Frederiksen:Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cunningham:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding. Jørgensen:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Merli:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria. Haioun:novartis: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; roche: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; janssen cilag: Consultancy; amgen: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria. Tilly:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Honoraria; merck: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Abstract Background Relatively few studies have evaluated the role of host (germline) genetics in predicting outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and of these, most were small candidate gene studies without replication and/or from the pre-R-CHOP era. We report the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) of outcome in DLBCL patients treated with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy. We used two independent studies for discovery, and validated the results in two additional independent studies. Methods In the discovery phase, we conducted a meta-analysis of two GWAS studies of DLBCL patients treated with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the first study as part of the prospective clinical trials of the LNH2003B program (N=540) of the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) and the second as part of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (N=316), a prospective observational study from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Genotyping for the GWAS was performed using the Illumina 610 (LYSA) and 660 Quad (SPORE) BeadArrays (Illumina, San Diego, USA). HapMap2 was used to impute additional SNPs. Association testing was conducted assuming a log-additive genetic model and using Cox regression analyses. We calculated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for event-free survival (EFS), with adjustment for age, sex and age-adjusted IPI. The two studies were then combined using the fixed effects inverse variance method based on the beta estimates and standard errors from each study. From the meta-analysis, 89 SNPs were selected for validation, based on a minor allele frequency (MAF) >0.05 and LD pattern for multiple SNPs from the same region. Validation cohorts were an independent set of DLBCL patients from the SPORE (SPORE-2, N=366) and DLBCL patients from the prospective GOELAMS 075 phase III study (N=294), and validation genotyping was conducted using the Illumina VeraCode platform. We then conducted a meta-analysis of the 4 studies. We report SNPs with both a statistical significance of p<5x10-6 and effect sizes in the same direction across the 4 studies in the meta-analysis. For the latter SNPs, we also report the results for overall survival (OS), adjusted for age, sex and age-adjusted IPI. Results In the final meta-analysis of all four studies for the prediction of EFS, the top SNP was rs7765004 (MAF=0.30; HR=1.45; p=9.7 x 10-8) in the 6q21 region, which is near the MARCKS (myristoylated alanine-rich protein kinase C substrate) and HDAC2 genes. MARCKS encodes for a protein involved in cell mobility, while HDAC2 belongs to the histone deacetylase family. Additional SNPs from this region included rs6918103 (MAF=0.25; HR=1.38; p=7.6 x 10-6), which marks an EZH2 histone binding site, and rs11969684 (MAF=0.12; HR=1.43; p=3.3 x 10-5). The next hit was rs7712513 (MAF=0.31; HR=1.40; p=3.2 x 10-7), which is near arginine-fifty homeobox pseudogene 1 (ARGFXP1) on chromosome 5q23.2. This was followed by a region on chromosome 8q13.3, with the SNP rs9298183 (MAF=0.29; HR=1.41; p=1.4 x 10-6) from LOC100132891 showing the strongest association, along with 3 other SNPs from this region (rs2035376, rs6472637, and rs1600797; all p<5 x 10-6). These SNPs are near the musculin gene (MSC) a transcriptional repressor of E2A frequently silenced by promoter methylation in DLBCL. Finally, rs2253986 (MAF=0.27; HR=1.39; p=3.4 x 10-6) at chromosome 16q12.2, along with rs2253971 and rs6499810, were associated with EFS. These SNPs are located in CES5A (carboxylesterase 5A), which encodes a member of the carboxylesterase family. The family members are responsible for the hydrolysis or transesterification of various xenobiotics. The top SNPs associated with EFS also predicted OS, including rs7765004 (HR=1.41; p=1.2 x 10-5), rs7712513 (HR=1.39; p=8.4 x 10-6), rs9298183 (HR=1.36; p=3.5 x 10-5), and rs2253986 (HR=1.35; p=5.2 x 10-5). Conclusions Although our top SNPs on did not reach genome-wide significance (p<5x10-8), they showed clear consistency across the four large prospective studies and predicted both EFS and OS independently of IPI. The strongest findings were from loci on 6q21, 8q13.3, 5q23.2, and 16q12.2, and several genes from these regions are involved in methylation and xenobiotic metabolism, supporting a role for host genetic variation in these pathways in DLBCL prognosis. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract We have recently reported that event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis (EFS24) is a robust endpoint for assessment of disease related outcome for newly diagnosed patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy (IC). Patients who achieve EFS24 following IC have a subsequent overall survival that is equivalent to the age and sex matched general population. The IPI was developed in the pre-rituximab era using OS/EFS endpoints. While the IPI is associated with outcome in the IC era, the original survival estimates for the IPI risk groups are outdated. The IPI is also a discrete risk classifier, with only 6 possible groups. Here we remodel the IPI using EFS24 as the endpoint in a large international cohort of patients treated with IC. This model provides an individual level 0-100% risk of failing to achieve EFS24 for each patient and can be used for patient prognosis, treatment stratification, and risk assessment. Methods Newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource, NCCTG N0489 clinical trial, GELA LNH2003B program, and a Lyon, France based hospital registry were included in the original EFS24 study. Patients with a relapse, progression, unplanned re-treatment, or death due to any cause within 730 days of diagnosis were considered a failure for the EFS24 endpoint. Patients alive and progression/relapse free at 730 days from diagnosis with no subsequent treatment following initial IC were considered a success for the EFS24 endpoint. Variables selected for potential model inclusion were the IPI components (age, stage, ECOG PS, number of extranodal sites, and LDH), as well as standard clinical variables typically reported in studies of DLBCL: presence of B-symptoms, bone marrow involvement, bulky disease (>10 cm), and sex. The IPI24, a prognostic model for EFS24, was developed using logistic regression models. Model building began by fitting the classic IPI score (0-5), then allowing individual IPI variables to carry different model weights and number of categories, followed by dropping insignificant variables, finally adding any additional significant variables. Model performance was assessed using bias corrected c-statistics, AIC, and R2 values. Model selection was done using the complete case set with multiple imputation on the full dataset used to refine parameter estimates for the final model. Results 1596 total patients were available for modeling. The median age was 62 (range 18-93) and 53% were male; 33% were IPI 0-1, 25% were IPI 2, 25% were IPI 3, and 17% were IPI of 4-5. The failure rate for achieving EFS24 was 29%. All variables but sex (p=0.33) were univariately associated with EFS24 (p<6.4x10-5). The original IPI had good prognostic ability for EFS24 (c=0.696, p=2.2x10-32). Allowing multiple categories for ECOG PS, stage, and age (continuous) improved model fit and prognostic ability (c=0.727). The number of extranodal sites was not significant when IPI variables were modeled separately and was removed from the model. Sex and bulky disease were additional significant variables when added to the model. Thus, the final IPI24 model contained the following risk predictors: male sex, ECOG PS (0 vs. 1 vs 2 vs 3-4), stage (I vs. II, vs. III vs. IV), LDH (elevated vs. normal range), bulky disease > 10cm, and age (continuous). This model resulted in improved fit and prognostic ability (c=0.749) over the standard IPI (c=0.696, bootstrap p<0.001). Model validation was performed on an additional 158 patients from the SPORE MER and showed good concordance (c=0.697). Additional validation is planned in a larger set of independent patients. Conclusion The IPI24, generated using standard clinical variables, yields an individual risk prediction for failing to achieve EFS24 following IC for treatment of DLBCL. The IPI24 has superior prognostic ability to the standard IPI and can be implemented in the clinic using a nomogram or as a simple electronic application. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with DLBCL who receive first-line anthracycline based immunochemotherapy and remain in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes with overall survival (OS) in one study that was comparable to the age and sex matched general population in cohorts from the US and France (Maurer et al, JCO 2014). To evaluate whether these findings are robust and generalizable, we assessed OS stratified by progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from pts with DLBCL enrolled in 14 multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the SEAL consortium. Methods: Central data alignment was performed by the SEAL statistics and data center. All enrolled patients treated with rituximab-containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy as part of initial induction therapy were included in this analysis using an intent-to-treat approach. PFS was defined as time from initiation of first-line therapy to progression or death. PFS24 was defined as being alive and progression-free 24 months (731 days) after initiation of therapy. Overall survival from PFS24 was defined as time from achieving PFS24 until death due to any cause. OS was compared to each patient's age-, sex-, and country- matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMR). Country-level population rate tables were obtained from www.mortality.org where available. A per-study average rate table was used when country information was unavailable. OS beyond 9 years from treatment initiation was only available the time of analysis from two trials (13% of cohort) and thus follow-up from PFS24 was restricted to the first 7 years after PFS24 for this analysis. Results: Fourteen studies with 7975 patients were included in the SEAL database. 5853 (73%) received rituximab as part of induction therapy and used in this analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 18-92) with 56% >60 years, 54% were male, 57% had elevated LDH, 63% had stage III/IV disease, 13% had ECOG PS 2-4, and IPI was 0-1 in 36%, 2 in 25%, 3 in 23%, and 4-5 in 16%. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 (23%) had disease progression, 1489 patients (25%) had died, and 5101 patients were evaluable for PFS24. 1423 (28%) of evaluable patients failed to achieve PFS24. These patients had poor outcomes after progression with median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1), 5-year OS of 19%, and SMR of 32.1 (95% CI: 30.0-34.4). Outcome was excellent (median unreached) in the 3678 patients who were progression-free at 24 months, with subsequent OS after achieving PFS24 approaching the age and sex matched general population (Figure). The observed vs. expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% vs. 94.4%, 87.6% vs. 89.5%, and 80.0% vs. 83.7%, respectively, the SMR was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09-1.37). In subset analyses examining pts achieving PFS24, adverse prognostic characteristics at baseline (elevated LDH, advanced stage, ECOG PS 2-4, high IPI) were associated with greater decrement in OS from the general population based expected survival (Table). Conclusions: PFS24 from the start of initial therapy stratifies DLBCL pts into populations with distinct outcomes. DLBCL pts treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunotherapy on large randomized clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from start of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for at least 7 years after achieving PFS24. Further follow-up time will be needed to assess any long-term impact of late relapse and survivorship issues in this population. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Amgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Roche France: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merli:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background OSis the gold standard primary efficacy endpoint for evaluating treatment strategies for DLBCL. Because current standard of care first-line regimens with rituximab plus chemotherapy produce median OS > 8 years, an endpoint assessed earlier would accelerate the evaluation of new therapies and potentially allow patients (pts) to more rapidly benefit from study results. The SEAL group formally evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in first-line therapy for DLBCL. Methods Through a systematic literature search and input from lymphoma experts on the SEAL committee, we identified multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated active treatment and enrolled at least 100 pts with previously untreated DLBCL or aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma by WHO/REAL classification, published after January 1, 1995. Studies which enrolled only early stage (I or II) pts and studies that could not provide individual pt data (IPD) were excluded from surrogacy analysis. Potential surrogate candidates for OS included: 1) PFS, defined as the time from initiation of induction treatment to progressive disease, relapse or death due to any cause, and 2) PFS rate at 24 months after initiation of induction treatment (PFS24). These endpoints were derived consistently for all studies based on IPD. Surrogacy was evaluated by the correlation between surrogate candidates and OS. Pt-level correlation was measured by the rank correlation coefficient (ρ) and global odds ratio for PFS and PFS24, respectively, estimated by the Copula model. Trial-level correlation was evaluated by the correlation between trial-specific treatment effects on surrogate candidates and OS with two commonly used trial-level R2s: R2WLS (Sargent et al JCO 2005) and R2Copula (Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc C 2001 and Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc A 2004). For the R2 measures, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. We pre-specified that if either trial-level R2 was >=0.80 and its 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded 0.60, the candidate would meet criteria for surrogacy. Results Thirteen of 14 studies collected to date in the SEAL database met all inclusion criteria. IPD for 7507 pts (median age 63 years, 54% male, 46% ECOG performance status 0, 8% IPI 0, 50% IPI 1-2, 64% stage III/IV, median follow-up time of 52 months) were analyzed. Among 13 studies, one tested maintenance treatment only and two tested both induction and maintenance regimens. One study included four treatment arms. Thus at the trial level, 17 two-arm comparisons were formed: 14 comparisons comparing induction regimens and 3 comparing maintenance; 15 comparisons involved rituximab. Longer PFS was highly correlated with longer OS at the pt level (ρ= 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86), as was PFS24 (Global odds ratio = 61.1, 95% CI 52.6-69.6). The Table shows trial-level correlations, and the Figure shows trial-level association between estimated treatment effects (log(HR) [hazard ratio]) on PFS and OS. The trial-level correlation between PFS and OS was strong and met the pre-specified surrogacy criteria, with R2WLS of 0.83 (95% CI 0.58-0.94) and R2Copula of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-0.99). Sensitivity analyses including only comparisons including rituximab or only induction regimens showed consistent results. The overall trial-level correlation between PFS24 and OS was reduced slightly, with R2WLS of 0.77 (95% CI 0.49-0.92) and R2Copula of 0.78 (95% CI 0.59-0.96). Performance of PFS24 was improved when restricting analysis to only including induction studies (see table). Conclusion This large IPD pooled-analysis demonstrates that PFS duration met the pre-specified criteria as a robust surrogate endpoint for OS, and can be considered as a surrogate endpoint for OS for frontline DLBCL trials evaluating immunochemotherapy. The earlier endpoint of PFS24 showed promise as a potential surrogate and further validation is warranted. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Flowers:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Merrimack: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Pfreundschuh:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche France: Research Funding. Merli:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2738 Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) with poor prognosis that necessitates the development of new treatments. Lenalidomide is a unique immunomodulatory agent with antiproliferative and tumoricidal effects on MCL cells. NHL-003 was a phase II, open-label, multicenter trial for subjects with relapsed aggressive NHL that tested single-agent lenalidomide 25 mg PO days 1–21 every 28 days. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), survival, and safety. At the time of the initial publication (Witzig et al. Ann Oncol.2011;22:1622–1627), MCL subgroup analysis showed an ORR of 42%; the median DOR had not been reached. The purpose of this report is to provide long-term efficacy and safety results for the MCL subgroup from NHL-003. Results: Subjects with MCL (N=57) had a median age of 68 y (range, 33–82), were predominantly male (77%) with good ECOG performance status (89% PS 0–1) and advanced-stage disease (88% stage III/IV). Subjects had received a median of 3 (range, 1–13) prior systemic therapies. According to the current central review at a median follow-up of 12.4 mo, subjects achieved an ORR of 35% (CR/CRu 12%) following lenalidomide, including a median DOR of 16.3 mo (Table 1). The ORR to single-agent lenalidomide was 44% (CR/CRu 21%) by independent assessment, with a median DOR not yet reached. Median PFS was 8.8 mo by central review and 5.7 mo according to investigators. Subjects responded quickly, with a median time to first response of 1.9 mo (central and investigator). Median DOR for subjects in CR and overall survival for all subjects have not yet been reached. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (30%), fatigue (9%), and diarrhea (5%). Other AEs included one subject with grade 1 to 2 tumor flare reaction, one subject with grade 3 deep vein thrombosis, and two subjects with second primary malignancies suspected of being related to treatment (one grade 3 squamous cell carcinoma of the skin that resolved and one grade 4 AML in a heavily pretreated individual with 5 prior cancer therapies). Conclusions: This subset analysis from a phase II study further confirms the efficacy of lenalidomide in subjects with relapsed MCL. Responders have a long DOR with manageable side effects. These results support continued investigation of lenalidomide alone or in combination for the treatment of MCL. Disclosures: Zinzani: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: This is a phase 2 clinical study of safety and efficacy for lenalidomide in patients with MCL. Czuczman:Celgene: Consultancy, Consultant Celgene Advisory Board Other. Reeder:Celgene: Mayo Clinic receives funding from Celgene to support clinical trials Other, Research Funding. Haioun:Celgene: Celgene Advisory Board Consultant Other, Consultancy. Tilly:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Pietronigro:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment. Li:Celgene: Employment. Witzig:Celgene: Research Funding.

AbstractEpidemiologic studies show an increased risk of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in patients with autoimmune disease (AD), due to a combination of shared environmental factors and/or genetic factors, or a causative cascade: chronic inflammation/antigen‐stimulation in one disease leads to another. Here we assess shared genetic risk in genome‐wide‐association‐studies (GWAS).Secondary analysis of GWAS of NHL subtypes (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma) and ADs (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and multiple sclerosis). Shared genetic risk was assessed by (a) description of regional genetic of overlap, (b) polygenic risk score (PRS), (c)"diseasome", (d)meta‐analysis.Descriptive analysis revealed few shared genetic factors between each AD and each NHL subtype. The PRS of ADs were not increased in NHL patients (nor vice versa). In the diseasome, NHLs shared more genetic etiology with ADs than solid cancers (p = .0041). A meta‐analysis (combing AD with NHL) implicated genes of apoptosis and telomere length.This GWAS‐based analysis four NHL subtypes and three ADs revealed few weakly‐associated shared loci, explaining little total risk. This suggests common genetic variation, as assessed by GWAS in these sample sizes, may not be the primary explanation for the link between these ADs and NHLs.